Scoring Drive Percentage

Yesterday I took a look at some punting stats from last year, and that was nice but I couldn’t compare them relatively because I didn’t have information on how many drives each team had.

Well, I did my best to approximate how many drives everyone had by adding up punts, lost fumbles, interceptions thrown, field goal attempts, failed fourth down conversions, and offensive touchdowns. That leaves out drives ended by halves, but there are only two of those per game and they often are just teams kneeling to run out the clock anyway. It also leaves out safeties, but I can’t find any stats on those and they’re pretty rare anyway.

All stats came from the NCAA, except field goals which curiously aren’t kept in a nice list. Those I got from ESPN.

Out of that, I calculated the percentage of drives a team scored on. The top ten are as follows:

1. Florida - 57.43%
2. Navy - 56.94%
3. Kansas - 52.63
4. Texas Tech - 52.20%
5. Missouri - 52.00%
6. Boise State - 51.76%
7. Oklahoma - 51.67%
8. LSU - 51.40%
9. Hawaii - 50.57%
10. West Virginia - 48.80%

The bottom ten are as follows:

1. FIU - 17.54%
2. Army - 20.37%
3. Notre Dame - 20.65%
4. Duke - 20.78%
5. Baylor - 20.96%
6. Syracuse - 22.82%
7. Temple - 23.53%
8. Iowa - 23.97%
9. Iowa State - 24.83%
10. Louisiana Tech - 25.44%

I don’t think the occupants of either list are that shocking other than Iowa. What happened to the Hawkeye offense? It used to be pretty good not that long ago.

This just goes to (further) show that great offense alone won’t get you contending for the title. Florida, Navy, and Texas Tech were 1, 2, and 4 on the list, with all scoring on over half of their drives. They finished 46, 108, and 50 in the scoring defense rankings though, which is why none of them won more than 9 games.

Also, at 6-6 Iowa serves as the answer to the question of which was the lowest bowl-eligible team (112th). The lowest bowl participant? None other than Sylvester Croom’s Mississippi State Bulldogs, 102nd with a 27.71% scoring rate. How a team won 8 games while scoring on just a shade over a quarter of its drives is a mystery, though timely turnovers and defensive scoring are part of it.

UCLA, our punting champs from yesterday, finished 99th, having scored on just 28.87% of its drives.

The two lowest ranked 10+ win teams were Boston College (#66, 34.97%) and Virginia Tech (T-54, 36.90%). That says a lot about the ACC, since those two teams met in the conference’s championship game. I also find it funny how the Hokies were #3 in scoring defense and went 11-3 while Georgia Tech was tied with VT in this list, but was 21st in scoring defense and finished 7-6. Furthermore, congratulations to the Atlanta Falcons who just drafted a quarterback who scored on just 35% of his drives last season.

Other notables:

• #14 Georgia (45.22%) - Sugar Bowl champs
• #16 UCF (44.81%) - Conference USA champion
• #18 Ohio State (44.52%) - Big Ten champion
• #23 Kansas State (43.71%) - Highest team with a losing record
• #36 USC (41.42%) - Pac 10 champs; not a vintage year for the Trojans’ offense
• #43 Central Michigan (39.68%) - MAC champions
• #49 Troy (38.86%) - Sun Belt champions
• #51 BYU (38.75%) - MWC champions; third-lowest 10+ win team
• #77 Florida State (34.10%) - So much for Jimbo Fisher turning things around immediately
• #105 Miami (26.53%) - Where have you gone, Ken Dorsey?

Punting in 2007

It’s safe to say that no one really enjoys punting. Punter is the only position without a representative in the NFL Hall of Fame (though Ray Guy should have been in long ago). Punting is an important part of the field position battle, but honestly, no one enjoys doing it. We’d rather see our teams score.

It is with that in mind I present you with the most and least prolific punting teams in college football a year ago. Keep in mind that avoiding punting is not necessarily an indication of an elite offense – turnovers end drives too, and often in more damaging ways.

The most prolific punting team was UCLA, with an astonishing 93 punts on the season for a robust 3899 yards. That’s right; the Bruins had more punting yards than 14 teams gained on offense. For comparison, UCLA punted for 992 more yards than Notre Dame gained with its offense. Karl Dorrell, this is your legacy.

The Ray Guy of coaches. Or something.

Other frequent punters included Virginia Tech (89), Iowa (87), FIU (83), Oregon State (83), East Carolina (82), Virginia (81), Syracuse (80), Duke (80), and Mississippi State (80). There’s a mix of good, bad, and mediocre in there, showing that punting a lot doesn’t necessarily mean your team will lose. It is telling though that a fourth of the ACC is in the list of the ten most frequent punters.

On the other end of the spectrum, Navy had the fewest punts with just 24 on the season for 895 yards. I’ll be interested to see if Paul Johnson’s Georgia Tech offense can keep the punting down anywhere close to that much in the punt-happy ACC. Georgia Tech punted 67 times last season, 3.1 more than the average team.

The remaining nine of the top ten least frequent punters are Texas Tech (30), Hawaii (35), Florida (37), Air Force (47), Louisville (48), Boise State (48), West Virginia (49), Southern Miss (49), and Arkansas State (50). This list is a bit better than the ten most frequent punters, with Arkansas State’s 5-7 record being the worst of them.

Granted, I don’t have a list of the number of drives for every team so I don’t know how these compare on a relative basis. Still, it’s interesting to see how justified UCLA fans were in their frustrations with Dorrell and to see how efficient the Gator offense really was last year.

Only 37 punts? Magnificent. If only we forced more than 10 the whole year…

The Guys Who Follow College Football’s Coaching Legends

We’ve all heard it a million times: “You don’t want to be the guy who follows a legend; you want to be the guy who follows the guy who follows the legend.”

It makes intuitive sense, and it certainly would seem true. Urban Meyer is the guy who followed the guy who followed the legend at Florida, and things have worked out quite well for him so far. Then again, Bill Callahan was the same at Nebraska, and the fans were ready to run him out of town two years before he finally got the axe.

To see how true this adage is, I’ve looked at some coaching legends and the guys who followed them. They are as follows, in chronological order from when the legend was hired:

OKLAHOMA

Legend: Bud Wilkinson, 1947-63, 145-29-4 (.826); 3 national and 14 conference titles

Follower: Gomer Jones, 1964-65, 9-11-1 (.452); 0 national or conference titles

Next: Jim Mackenzie, 1966, 6-4 (.600); 0 national or conference titles

This is somewhat of a bad example to start off with, since Mackenzie sadly passed away due to a heart attack after his first season.

Jones definitely had a difficult time following Wilkinson though, having not been able to break even in his two years. Wilkinson is the coach who led Oklahoma to its famed 47-game winning streak, and he failed to win the Big 8 title in only three of his 17 years.

AUBURN

Legend: Shug Jordan, 1951-75, 175-83-7 (.674), 1 national and 1 conference title

Follower: Doug Barfield, 1976-80, 29-25-1 (.536), 0 national or conference titles

Next: Pat Dye, 1981-92, 99-39-4 (.711), 0 national and 4 conference titles

Jordan held the job for 25 years and the stadium is named after him, but his .674 winning percentage is lower than any of the other legends on this list. Barfield followed him up with 5 forgettable seasons, with 8-3 being the best record he posted.

Dye had the most success in his tenure of the three, though he was forced out of his coaching and AD position when it was revealed that assistant coaches and boosters had paid a player. He still is fondly remembered, though, as the field at Jordan-Hare stadium was named after him in 2005.

OHIO STATE

Legend: Woody Hayes, 1951-78, 205-61-10 (.761), 5 national and 13 conference titles

Follower: Earle Bruce, 1979-87, 81-26-1 (.755), 0 national and 4 conference titles

Next: John Cooper, 1988-2000, 111-43-4 (.715), 0 national and 4 conference titles

Earle Bruce did an admirable job in following Woody Hayes after Hayes’ unexpected meltdown and firing. He did not see the same success however, though he nearly won the national title in his first year.

John Cooper is a goat in OSU annals, having posted a 2-10-1 record against Michigan and having presided over numerous academic and discipline problems.

TEXAS

Legend: Darrell Royal, 1957-76, 167-47-5 (.774), 3 national and 11 conference titles

Follower: Fred Akers, 1977-86, 86-31-2 (.731), 0 national and 2 conference titles

Next: David McWilliams, 1987-91, 31-26 (.544), 0 national and 1 conference title

Akers did a much better job than McWilliams did. Akers caught flak though for losing bowl games and in his final few years having bad records against Oklahoma and Texas A&M.

McWilliams’s 1990 SWC championship year looks like a fluke in light of the rest of his seasons, with the 7-5 record in his first year being the second-best record he had.

ALABAMA

Legend: Paul Bryant, 1958-82, 232-46-9 (.824), 6 national and 13 conference titles

Follower: Ray Perkins, 1983-86, 32-15-1 (.677), 0 national or conference titles

Next: Bill Curry, 1987-89, 26-10 (.722), 0 national and 1 conference title

Perkins left the New York Giants to coach at his alma mater, and he left four years later to take a rich contract with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. An incident where a former player that he had recruited claimed he was paid led to the school being placed on probation in 1995.

Curry was doing well in his three years, though he was 0-3 against Auburn. He didn’t like the contract offered to him in 1990, so he left to coach Kentucky.

GEORGIA

Legend: Vince Dooley, 1964-88, 201-77-10 (.715), 1 national and 6 conference titles

Follower: Ray Goff, 1989-95, 46-34-1 (.574), 0 national or conference titles

Next: Jim Donnan, 1996-2000, 40-19 (.678), 0 national or conference titles

Neither Goff nor Donnan panned out for the Bulldogs. They both failed to win even an SEC East title, and both were used as Florida’s whipping boy. Goff is perhaps most famous for being called “Ray Goof” by Steve Spurrier.

MICHIGAN

Legend: Bo Schembechler, 1969-89, 194-48-5 (.796), 0 national and 13 conference titles

Follower: Gary Moeller, 1990-94, 44-13-3 (.758), 0 national and 3 conference titles

Next: Lloyd Carr, 1995-07, 122-40 (.753), 1 national and 5 conference titles

Moeller is a controversial figure for Wolverines due to his messy departure following a drunken altercation at a restaurant. Some argue his best years were already behind him; some argue that he was trying to modernize the program and that Carr won his national title with Moeller’s players.

Carr is one of the few followed-the-guy-who-followed-the-legend guys who actually won a national title. His legacy will remain mixed due to his futility against Jim Tressel and the loss to Appalachian State.

BYU

Legend: LaVell Edwards, 1972-2000, 257-101-3 (.716), 1 national and 19 conference titles

Follower: Gary Crowton, 2001-04, 26-23 (.531), 0 national and 1 conference title

Next: Bronco Mendenhall, 2005-present, 28-10 (.737), 0 national and 2 conference titles

Crowton won the MWC his first year with Edwards’ players, but failed to reach .500 in his remaining three years. Mendenhall has put together consecutive 11-win seasons, winning the MWC title each year. His 2008 team is expected to contend for a BCS bowl.

NEBRASKA

Legend: Tom Osborne, 1973-97, 255-49-3 (.836), 3 national and 13 conference titles

Follower: Frank Solich, 1998-03, 58-19 (.753), 0 national and 1 conference title

Next: Bill Callahan, 2004-07, 27-22 (.551), 0 national or conference titles

Solich is probably the source of the modern “You don’t want to be the guy who follows a legend” movement, having been fired after a 9-win season. Callahan ended up being a disaster, and will probably be despised by Husker fans forever.

FLORIDA

Legend: Steve Spurrier, 1990-2001, 122-27-1 (.817), 1 national and 6 conference titles

Follower: Ron Zook, 2002-04, 23-14 (.622), 0 national and conference titles

Next: Urban Meyer, 2005-present, 31-8 (.795), 1 national and 1 conference title

Zook was doomed from the beginning, having been a fallback choice for the coaching position and having never been a head coach before. He won games he shouldn’t have, but lost games he shouldn’t have too. He also presided over an explosion of off-field issues, including Zook himself being involved in a fight at a frat house. Some Florida fans still defend him, but the overall sentiment is that his hiring was a mistake.

After doubts about his offense abounded in his first year, Meyer solidified his position in his second by winning a national title. Some fans are uncomfortable with his highly aggressive recruiting tactics, which have drawn scrutiny from other coaches and the NCAA, but otherwise Gators are more than happy with his job so far.

*   *   *

Following a legend, regardless of place in line, is not easy. Only Pat Dye clearly surpassed his legendary predecessor’s accomplishments, but his departure was not the stuff of legends.

None of the followers distinguished himself after leaving, though Earle Bruce had a nice run with Iowa State before coaching the Buckeyes. Ron Zook still has time to carve out his legacy at Illinois.

The book is still open for Mendenhall and Meyer, but both appear to be in good shape. Despite their records, most of the coaches in that coveted “guy who followed the guy who followed the legend” role didn’t fare much better than the guy who did follow the legend.

There is some truth to the adage, but in the end good coaches will succeed in good situations regardless of who came before.

Tebow’s Stats and Records

Just so you all know, the posting has been light around here lately because I graduated in December and now am in the process of moving to Charlotte, NC. It’s a lot of work and not conducive at all for putting out quality content.

For the time being, I’d like to draw your attention to a post made by cwarner206 from the GatorSports.com message board. It contains a list of every record set by Tebow this year, along with other records that are within striking distance. He probably won’t get a lot of the overall rushing records since Florida should have 2-3 good running backs for next year, but it’s still pretty amazing, and it’s some excellent work by cwarner206.

Season Marks

NCAA records:
–1st underclassman Heisman winner
–1st person to ever have 20+ rush and 20+ pass TDs in one season
–Most rushing TDs by a QB, season (23, previous record 22)
–Highest passing efficiency in a Heisman season: 172.5
previous: 170.6, Danny Wuerffel, 1996, Florida

SEC records:
–Most total TDs, season: 55
previous: 41, Danny Wuerffel, 1996, Florida
–Most total TDs, game: 7 vs S. Carolina, tied with 7 other players
–Most rush TDs, season: 23
previous: 19, 3 players
–Most rush TDs by a QB, season: 23
previous: 13, 3 players
–Most consecutive games with a rush TD and pass TD: 13
–Most total yards, season: 4181
previous: 4151, Tim Couch, 1998, Kentucky
–2nd in passing efficiency, season: 172.5
–2nd in most points, season: 138
–3rd in completion pct, season: 66.9%
–5th in yards per game, season: 321.6
–7th in TD passes, season: 32
–7th in ratio of attempts/ints, season: 1 every 58.3 attempts
–14th in passing yards, season: 3286

UF records:
–Most total TDs, season: 55
previous: 41, Danny Wuerffel, 1996
–Most total TDs, game: 7 vs S. Carolina, tied with 3 others
–Most points, season: 138
previous: 110, Reidell Anthony, 1996
–Most rush TDs, season: 23
previous: 14, Emitt Smith & Buford Long
–Most rush TDs, game: 5 vs S. Carolina
–Most rush TDs by a QB, season: 23
–Most rush yards, QB, game: 166 vs Ole Miss (also #2 with 120 vs S. Car.)
–Most rush yards, QB, season: 895
–Most rush yards, QB, career: 1364
previos: 785, Larry Libertore
–Most consecutive games with a rush TD: 13
previous: 7, Errict Rhett
–Most consecutive games with a rush TD and pass TD: 13
–Most total yards, season: 4181
previous: 3904, Rex Grossman, 2001
–Most 200 yard passing games, season: 11, tied with 3 others
–Highest completion pct, season: 66.9%
previous: 65.6%, Rex Grossman, 2001
–2nd in passing efficiency, season: 172.5
–2nd in yards per game, season: 321.6
–2nd in ratio of attempts/ints, season: 1 every 58.3 attempts
–4th in TD passes, season: 32
–4th in passing yards, season: 3286

Career records within reach

NCAA:
–Most total TDs, current: 146, Colt Brennan, Hawaii
needed: 78 TD over 2 years
–1st person to ever have 50+ rush and 50+ pass TD
needed: 19 rush TD, 13 pass TD over 2 years
–Most rushing TDs by a QB, current: 59, Eric Crouch, Nebraska
needed: 28 rush TD over 2 years
–Highest passing efficiency, current: 168.9, Ryan Dinwiddle, Boise St.
needed: maintain anything close to his current 175.0 career rating
–Highest completion pct, current: 68.2%, Bruce Gradkowski, Toledo
neeeded: average a little over 69% over 2 years (66.8% currently)
–Lowest % of passes intercepted, current: 1.85%, Matt Leinart, USC
needed: maintain current average of 1.83%
–Most consecutive games with a rush and a pass TD:
needed: may already have it
–Most consecutive games scoring a TD, current: 27, Lee Suggs, VT
needed: 14 consecutive games with a rush TD
–Most Heisman trophies, current: 2
needed: one more
–Highest pct of passes for TDs, current: 9.7%, Danny Wuerffel, Florida
needed: slighly raise current 9.66%

SEC:
–Most total yards, current: 11,270, David Greene, Georgia
needed: 6,262 yards over 2 years
–Most total TDs, current: 122, Danny Wuerffel, Florida
needed: 54 TD over 2 years
–Highest passing efficiency, current: 163.6, Danny Wuerffel, Florida
needed: maintain anything close to his current 175.0 career rating
–Highest completion pct, current: 67.1%, Tim Couch, Kentucky
neeeded: average a little under 68 % over 2 years (66.8% currently)
–Lowest % of passes intercepted, current: 2.22%, David Greene, Georgia
needed: maintain anything near current average of 1.83%
–1st person to ever have 40+ rush and 40+ pass TD
needed: 9 rush TD, 3 pass TD over 2 years
–Most rush TDs, current: 49, Herschel Walker, Georgia
needed: 18 rush TDs over 2 years

Defining a “National Champion”

The first part to defining a “national champion” is easy: national refers to this nation, the USA, and therefore only US schools are eligible. Or, at least until the NCAA admits Canadian schools. But for the moment, it’s about US universities only.

The second part is tricky, because “champion” can be defined in several different ways. Here are a few I could find:

• Dictionary.com: “anything that takes first place in competition”
• Wikipedia: “one who has repeatedly come out first among contestants in challenges (especially the winner of a tournament or other competition) or other test”
• Popular Use: The best team of a particular sports league in a given year, as in, “The Bears were the 1985 NFL Champions.”

By Dictionary.com’s definition, every game has a champion because one team takes first place in the game while another takes a loss. Wikipedia’s definition is more exclusive since it requires repeated first place finishes, so that eliminates 1-loss FIU, for instance, from being a champion. However, while it’s not specific on how many first place finishes define a champion, it singles out tournament winners especially as being champions. The popular use definition is the most specific, and it is commonly the one used when talking about national champions for college football.

How Many National Champions?

The standard assumption is that there can’t be more than one national champion, which is why people say things like “In 2003, there was a split national title” rather than “In 2003, there were two national champions.”

It’s all semantics, but it’s an important distinction. The NCAA’s website provides “a year-by-year history of Division I-A football national champions as determined by the BCS championship game and… polling organizations.” Since the NCAA maintains that I-A football “do[es] not participate in the NCAA Division I Football Championship,” it doesn’t care how many champions are named every year.

The BCS does care about the number of champions however, stating that it “was established to determine the national champion for college football,” (emphasis mine), not a champion for college football. This fact proves that at the very least the 6 BCS auto-bid conferences and their members, Notre Dame, and the 4 BCS bowls care about having one and only one champion as those were the institutions that created the BCS.

Now, some like Kyle T. King of Dawg Sports argue that college football doesn’t necessarily need a champion, and that’s fine. However, I’ll eat my hat (and it’s pretty nasty; ask my girlfriend) if like-minded people aren’t few and far between. Way too many people invest way too much time in determining/arguing over who is the best team for many people to be of the belief that naming a champion is superfluous. Plus, universities, investors, and advertisers have invested billions of dollars in the BCS, a construct designed to determine one and only one champion. I will not spend any more time on the concept of college football not needing a champion because it’s a fringe view at best.

The existence of the BCS to determine a champion also proves that the powers that be of college football believe that the regular season is not enough to determine a champion. Due to imbalanced scheduling and differing strengths of conferences, I wholeheartedly agree. The regular season alone is insufficient for choosing a champion.

Determining Who Is Best

Does a champion by definition indicate the best team? Go back to the definitions for a sec, I’ll wait…

Notice how only the popular use definition includes the requirement of a team being “best?” All that is required by the established definitions is first place finishes, not being the best.

Some people define the “best” as having won the most games in the most impressive fashion. Other define the best team as having the best group of players. When you get down to it though, there’s a dizzying array of shades of gray when it comes to determining the best team over the course of a season.

What do you do with Oregon? The Ducks looked like world beaters with Dennis Dixon at quarterback, but as soon as he went down, the team lost it’s heart and went into the tank on both sides of the ball. Which is the real Oregon? And when you’re picking who’s best, will you consider the Ducks with Dixon and the Ducks without Dixon to be the same team when they clearly were not?

What do you do with Hawaii? No one finished first in games more often than the Warriors did. Perhaps the games were not as challenging as others’ games, but no team fits the “champion” definition more than Hawaii does.

What do you do with Georgia? Once Mark Richt was forced by injury to quit being stubborn and play Knowshown Moreno, the Bulldogs became one of the better offensive teams in the country. Around the same time, Richt loosened up and changed his attitude and as a result the defense played better too. Which Georgia team do you count when you’re picking who’s best, the Moreno-less, fire-less team that lost to South Carolina and was blown out by Tennessee, or the team that had Moreno playing and had proper motivation that finished the season strong? Or do you count them as the same team when they clearly were not?

How about the Boston College at Virginia Tech game? For 57 minutes, VT dominated and ended up leading 10-0 over a clearly overmatched BC team. Then, for some inexplicable reason, VT switched to a prevent defense that allowed Matt Ryan to throw two TD passes to give BC a 14-10 victory. Now, which team was better? Having watched most of the game, I can tell you that VT was the better team that day, with the Hokies playing better than the Eagles for 57 of the 60 minutes. However, BC’s 3 good minutes allowed it to finish in first place for the contest. Was the best team the champion? Simply put, no.

The point is, it’s nearly impossible to choose which team is best in a season because of how many variables there are involved. Injuries and differences in schedule strength especially make comparison difficult, not to mention strange outcomes like the BC-VT game that hide what’s really going on. Picking who’s “best” is a fool’s errand.

What’s all this mean?

If picking one “best” team is a fool’s errand, what should picking the two “best” teams for a national championship game be called? Well, I’ll leave that as an exercise for you, dear reader. Some people would say that picking the two best teams is called the BCS, but actually, it’s not.

You see, the BCS says in reference to all 5 of its games that it “has become a showcase for the sport, matching the best teams at the end of the season.” That statement is a tacit confession that it can’t determine the best team, only the best teams. Yeah, it’s semantics like before, but again, this is important.

College football’s current post season is not about finding the best team, only determining a champion. Any proposed playoff system would do the same exact same thing - determine a champion, not the best team - because it’s impossible to even precisely define what makes a team best.

And, don’t forget, a post season is required for determining a champion for the reasons stated prior, so judging teams solely on the regular season isn’t enough.

The more precise definition of “champion” requires repeatedly coming up first, especially in a tournament. Because of that fact, it stands to reason that a tournament, which requires repeated first place finishes, is a better champion-finding system than a one-shot national championship game it since that requires only one first place finish. That’s really all there is to it.

The National Championship Game, Part II

In the first post titled “The National Championship Game,” the most interesting stat (to me, anyway) I uncovered was that since 1992, only 12 unique teams have participated in the college football national championship game. Now, part of that is because from 1992-97, no Big Ten or Pac 10 teams participated in the Bowl Coalition or Bowl Alliance. If you go by who finished #1 or #2 in the AP Poll for 1992-97, that number increases to 15.

It still made me wonder whether this was on par with other sports. After all, a common complaint is that baseball lacks of competitive balance with major market teams outspending the smaller market teams. Plus, since 1988 only 6 different franchises have won NBA championships. I want to see how much variety some other sports get at the end of the season compared to college football. So, I looked at the participants in the finals of the MLB, NFL, NBA, and NHL, plus the championship game of the NCAA D-I tournament. In addition, I threw in I-AA football since it is somewhat similar to I-A. Any division lower than that is beyond my realm of familiarity.

How does the polls-and-bowls system stack up against other sports in variety of finalists?

I-A College Football

15 Unique Teams: Alabama, Miami, FSU, Nebraska, Penn State (AP #2 in 1994), Florida, Arizona State (AP #2 in 1996), Michigan (AP #2 in 1997), Tennessee, VT, Oklahoma, Ohio State, LSU, USC, Texas

Percentage: 15/32 = 46.88%

This is our baseline. Only 46.88% of the top 2 at the end of the season have been unique teams. College football is known for having marquee teams dominating, but as mentioned above other sports have the same perceptions. If we assume that college football’s top teams come and go at the same rate as other sports’ do, we can now determine whether the variety is lower or higher than other sports’ varieties.

NBA Finals

17 Unique Teams: Chicago, Portland, Phoenix, Houston, New York, Orlando, Seattle, Utah, San Antonio, LA Lakers, Indiana, Philadelphia, New Jersey, Detroit, Miami, Dallas, Cleveland.
Percentage: 17/32 = 53.13%

Jordan/Pippen. Olajuwon. Stockton/Malone. Duncan. Shaq/Kobe. Kidd. Of all the multiple appearances of teams in the finals, only Detroit didn’t have at least one superstar or superstar combo leading the way. With basketball, that’s almost all you need since only 5 guys from a team participate at a time. Sometimes, all you need is one transcendent star and a grab bag of guys who don’t care about their own shot to get to a Finals - think Iverson and 2001 Philly or LeBron James and 2007 Cleveland - though you’re not likely to win the title once you get there.

Div. I College Basketball

18 Unique Teams: Duke, Michigan (vacated), UNC, Arkansas, UCLA, Kentucky, Syracuse, Arizona, Utah, UConn, Michigan State, Florida, Maryland, Indiana, Kansas, Georgia Tech, Illinois, Ohio State

Percentage: 18/32 = 56.25%

Despite college basketball’s tournament being known for upsets and chaos, when it comes to the final game the cream rises to the top. Some of the lack of variety can be attributed to the fact mentioned above that with basketball, you can ride 2 or 3 outstanding players to the finals or a championship. After all, Michigan, Duke, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Florida all had teams in back-to-back championship games or at least two in three years.

Major League Baseball

17 Unique Teams: Toronto, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Cleveland, NY Yankees, Florida, San Diego, NY Mets, Arizona, Anaheim, San Francisco, Boston, St. Louis, Chicago White Sox, Houston, Detroit, Colorado

Percentage: 17/30 = 56.67%

Remember, there was no 1994 World Series due to the strike, so there’s only 30 possible teams since 1992.

Baseball has seen some remarkably consistent winners in the Atlanta Braves and New York Yankees. Some teams bought their championships and were really good for only one year (’97 Marlins, ‘01 Diamondbacks), some got hot at the right time (’98 San Diego, ‘07 Colorado), and others just made timely pitching acquisitions (’05 White Sox and Astros). In the end, only the Yankees’ hegemony over the AL and Braves’ hegemony over the NL (6 and 4 Series appearances, respectively) kept the number so low; besides them, no team has appeared more than twice in the World Series, with only Toronto doing it in back-to-back years.

National Football League

21 Unique Teams: Washington, Buffalo, Dallas, San Francisco, San Diego, Pittsburgh, Green Bay, New England, Denver, Atlanta, St. Louis, Tennessee, Baltimore, NY Giants, Tampa Bay, Oakland, Carolina, Philadelphia, Seattle, Indianapolis, Chicago

Percentage: 21/32 = 65.63%

The NFL is supposed to be built for parity, and you can see that reflected in the larger number of unique Super Bowl participants. This time period does include 4 visits by the Patriots and 3 each by the Cowboys and Bills, but only Favre’s Packers, Elway’s Broncos, Warner’s Rams, and Cowher’s Steelers made multiple visits. The league got what it wanted for the most part, though the current Colts and Patriots seem to be increasingly resistant to the parity virus.

National Hockey League

20 Unique Teams: Pittsburgh, Chicago, Montreal, Los Angeles, NY Rangers, Vancouver, New Jersey, Detroit, Colorado, Florida, Philadelphia, Washington, Dallas, Buffalo, Carolina, Anaheim, Tampa Bay, Calgary, Edmonton, Ottowa

Percentage: 20/30 = 66.67%

Remember, there was no 2005 Stanley Cup playoffs due to the lockout.

I must confess I’m not really a hockey fan; I attempted to get into it when the Lightning went to the finals a couple years ago, but I just couldn’t watch an entire game on TV. I think part of the problem was the neutral zone trap, a defense of which I have a tenuous grasp; basically it sucks the like out of the sport. It was one of the things fixed as an aftermath of the lockout, along with the institution of a salary cap. It’s too early to say what effect the salary cap will have on competitive balance, but no sport in the past 16 post seasons has produced more finalists than the NHL has. It’s mainly due to parity in the early ’90s; since 2000, only 6 of the 14 finalists have been newcomers, whereas 1992-99, 14 of the 16 finalists were newcomers (Detroit being the only returner).

Div. I-AA Football

13 Unique Teams: Marshall, Youngstown State, Boise State, Montana, McNeese State, UMass, Georgia Southern, Furman, Western Kentucky, Delaware, Colgate, James Madison, Northern Iowa

Percentage: 13/32 = 40.63%

Here, we see that I-AA football actually produced fewer finalists than I-A did. Looking at the results, I can tell you that it’s because of coaches  cultivating dynasties: Jim Donnan at Marshall, Jim Tressel at Youngstown State, Paul Johnson at Georgia Southern, and recently Jerry Moore at Appalachian State.

Why so few finalists in college football?

As stated above, the I-AA championship game can be dominated for years at a time by excellent coaches that are too good to stay at the I-AA level for long (such as Donnan, Tressel, and Johnson). Opponents of a playoff might try to point out the fact that from year to year, the best teams change more slowly in college football than other sports, so picking a top two should be easier than in the NFL for instance, where recent Super Bowl losers have been prone to falling off the map.

Consider this though. The I-AA football playoffs since 1992 have all consisted of 16 teams apiece, and while the number of teams seeded has changed, the top four seeds every year are enumerated. The teams are determined by a playoff committee, similar to the basketball tournament. Only 5 times in the past 16 years have two teams from the top four played each other, and only once (1996) have the top two seeds played each other. That fact shouldn’t come as a surprise when you remember that never have all four #1 seeds made the Final Four of the men’s basketball tournament.

The Coaches’ Poll, Harris Poll, and computer poll average of the BCS make up the de facto I-A football playoff committee, whose job is simply to pick out #1 and #2. Records and stats alone aren’t enough, because teams from different conferences play completely different schedules, and comparing conferences is difficult when so few of the elite of any of the conferences play each other.

Even the committees, who are made to be balanced and whose members watch more film than any pollsters do, can’t accurately guess the best four teams most years, much less the best two. Can the choice of the two teams that play for the championship really be made by people who may or may not watch film of more than 13 teams (the coaches), people who may or may not watch more than a game a weekend (the Harris Poll voters), and those who may or may not have hidden bias incomprehensible to common people (the computers)? Almost certainly not if you’re going for accuracy.

The National Championship Game

For the purposes of this essay, all years refer to the season, not the actual year the national title game was played. For example, the 1997 Sugar Bowl was the national championship game for the 1996 season, so it gets referred to as the 1996 national championship game.

There have been 15 “national championship” games, from the beginning of the Bowl Coalition in 1992 to the advent of the BCS National Championship Game last year. Three times in that span the game featured a #3 team due to the Big Ten and Pac 10 refusing to participate prior to the BCS in 1998: in 1994 it was #1 Nebraska vs. #3 Miami; in 1996 it was #1 FSU vs. #3 Florida; and in 1997 it was #2 Nebraska vs. #3 Tennessee.

Counting the upcoming game for this season, out of the 32 possible spots only 12 unique teams have participated in the national title game, in chronological order: Alabama, Miami, FSU, Nebraska, Florida, Tennessee, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma, Ohio State, LSU, USC, and Texas. Only 3 of those 12 teams have played in it once - Alabama, VT, and Texas - with LSU falling out of that category this year. The longest stretch of games featuring newcomers was 2002-05, with Ohio State, LSU, USC, and Texas playing, and for that matter winning, their first national title games in that period. Only 5 of the 16 games did not feature a team from the state of Florida: ‘97, ‘03, ‘04, ‘05, and ‘07. That 4 of the 5 games have come in the last 5 years shouldn’t be a surprise given the decline of the marquee Florida teams under Ron Zook, Bobby Bowden, and Larry Coker.

The average score of the national title game is 36 - 18.47, for an average margin of victory of 17.53 points. Eight of the 15 games have been blowouts, meaning the margin of victory was greater than two scores (more than 16 points). We have never gone more that two years without a blowout, though there were three blowouts in a row in the Bowl Alliance years of 1995-97. Those were also the only instances of back-to-back blowouts. Only 6 of the 15 games had a final margin under 10 points.

The most points scored in a national title game was 62 by ‘95 Nebraska, and the fewest was 2 by ‘00 FSU.
Only 5 teams scored fewer than 30 points and won - ‘93 FSU, ‘94 Nebraska, ‘98 Tennessee, ‘00 Oklahoma, and ‘03 LSU.

The BCS Era

The BCS ostensibly was created to pit #1 versus #2, but how good has it been at selecting those teams? In the first four years, #1 was a perfect 4-0, but since #1 is only 1-4. The average score is 34.22 - 18.89, with an average margin of victory of 15.33 points. Four of the nine games have been blowouts; four of the 5 non-blowouts had margins under 10 points. At least by that quick look, it seems that half the time it sets up a good game and half the time it doesn’t. It’s statistically a coin flip as to who will win, but trends suggest #2 LSU has an excellent chance against #1 Ohio State this year.

Only two conferences - the SEC (with Tennessee, LSU, and Florida) and the Big 12 (with Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas), have put two or more different teams in the BCS title game. Since Miami in 2001-02 was a Big East member, it counts as a Big East team rather than an ACC team; no current Big East team has made the title game.

Almost each year, a controversy has arisen. Almost each year, a tweak to the system has been made to correct that error. However, since the BCS is a reactive institution, it will almost certainly never produce a perfectly agreed upon year unless two BCS conference champions go undefeated. To wit:

• 1998: The problem was #3 Kansas State not being picked for a BCS bowl. The “Kansas State Rule” was enacted giving an automatic bid to #3 (or #4 if #3 is an auto-qualifier).
• 1999: The problem was undefeated Tulane and #6 Kansas State (again) being passed over for #8 Michigan.
• 2000: The problem was having one undefeated team and three 10-1 teams. Two (Miami and Washington) had legitimate cases for the #2 spot, but it went to the third 10-1 team FSU, who had lost to Miami.
• 2001: Nebraska ends up #2 despite being blown out by Colorado in the Big 12 title game and finishing #4 in the human polls. The #2 team in the human polls, one-loss Oregon, was 4th in the final regular season BCS poll behind two-loss Colorado. Oregon would blow out Colorado in the Fiesta Bowl.
• 2002: No controversy in selecting Miami and Ohio State, the two lone undefeated teams. There was that pass interference call though.
• 2003: Three one-loss teams from BCS leagues and no undefeated teams for the first time since 1996. USC was #1 in the human polls, but the BCS title game ended up with the other two one-loss teams, LSU and Oklahoma. OU had not won the Big 12, having lost in the Big 12 title game. Three non-BCS teams - Miami (OH), Boise State, and TCU - finished with one loss but none got a BCS bid. LSU and USC split the title, something that the BCS was supposed to prevent from happening.
• 2004: In a fit of irony, after a year with no undefeated teams there were no less than 5 undefeated teams: USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, Utah, and Boise State, with the first two playing for the title. This was also the year of Mack Brown campaigning against Cal, but it did have some good with Utah being the first BCS Buster.
• 2005: Like 2002, the system got lucky with only two undefeated teams - USC and Texas - who played a classic in the Rose Bowl. Oregon did get shafted again thanks to Notre Dame’s automatic bid if it finishes in the top 8 in the BCS standings, an increasingly bad idea.
• 2006: Florida or Michigan? Michigan or Florida? And what about Wisconsin, Louisville, and Boise State? Florida’s trouncing of the Buckeyes led a lot of people to pontificate that the system “got it right.” However, that’s a smokescreen since the computers were evenly split between UF and UM, meaning it was the human polls that decided the game’s participants. The “system” that got it right was no different than the one in the old Bowl Coalition/Alliance days.
• 2007: Huge upsets every week. No undefeated teams except Hawaii, a team that played a historically bad schedule. Ohio State is the only one-loss BCS conference champion, but its schedule was weaker than some others and it lost a lot of credibility in the desert the year before. The computers say LSU and VT should be in, but since the humans that make the system marginalized the computers a couple years back, it’s LSU and OSU. LSU destroyed VT in an early season game, but what about Oklahoma, Georgia, USC, West Virginia, and Hawaii?

Picking a #1 and #2 can sometimes be easy (2002, 2005), and sometimes extremely difficult (2000, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007). The BCS is an inherently conflicted system - it includes computer polls to add an element of impartiality unswayed by tradition and regional bias, but after the human polls were overruled by the computer polls several times, the people running the system gave the humans nearly unsurmountable power. It’s a wonder the BCS still includes them on a regular basis; at this point they can only make an impact if the Coaches’ and Harris polls differ on who’s #2.

Until and unless we see a playoff, it’s unlikely we’ll see a controversy-free, true national championship game. And even then, there will still be plenty of whiners. Such is the existence of college football.

SSOS Awards

Statistical Strength of Schedule (SSOS) has become a weekly feature of mine, and you can read the rationale and about how it’s calculated here.

I’ve got the final SSOS calculated, but I’m not done with the writeup and charts and all. In the meantime, enjoy these awards I just made up last night on an airplane. They’re based on the final numbers, which should be up sometime before Ragnarok.

The SSOS Champion: Best overall SSOS

WINNERS: Nebraska (team): 48.52 SSOS score; SEC (conference): 29.75 average rank

Huskers, even though you got torched constantly on defense, had a wildly inconsistent offense, and got your coach fired, at least you did it all against the nation’s toughest schedule.

The SEC showed just how tough it is by overcoming 10 games against I-AA opposition to win the conference battle comfortably over the Pac 10. No more whining about the SEC having weak out of conference opponents – the teams still graded out as having played the strongest schedules among the BCS conferences.

The SSOS Goat: Worst overall SSOS

WINNERS: Hawaii (team): 81.44 SSOS score; ACC (conference): 59.33 average rank

Hawaii, you’re a nice story and all with your BCS bid, but I hope you know it’s fraudulent with as easy of a schedule as you played. I know Michigan State pulled out of its game with you, but playing two teams below I-A will get you this award nearly every time. At least you play Florida next year.

ACC, by now you know that no one cares about your conference when FSU and Miami are having bad years. The attendance in Jacksonville a week ago proved that. However, your attempt to look better by playing the weakest overall schedule by far didn’t work because your teams really are that bad and that boring. Please try to play a real slate in the future, which means finding strength in your non-conference games because you sure won’t find it inside your conference.

Mr. Bland Award: For scheduling mediocrity

WINNERS: Wisconsin (team): ranked 60^th; Big Ten (conference)

Wisconsin, you finished exactly in the middle. There were 59 teams ahead of you, and 59 teams behind you. That is the perfect embodiment of middle-of-the-road. It makes sense considering your conference.

Big Ten, you finished with all of your teams in the second and third quintiles. No one particularly exerted itself, but no one took it easy either. It’s an interesting strategy, albeit one that gets you ranked second-to-last among the BCS conferences. Ohio State dropping Youngstown State picking up USC certainly helps, but don’t let the Buckeyes’ ambition steer you away from your dream of blandness. It suits you well.

Go Getter Award: Largest gap between the conference’s first and second place

WINNER: Syracuse

Syracuse, you win this one for having the toughest schedule in your conference and for finishing with the biggest gap between you and the second place team (Pitt) at 16 spots. Way to put the rest of your conference to shame. Perhaps this is why Greg Robinson still has a job.

Deadweight Award: Worst schedules in each conference

WINNERS: Georgia Tech, Kansas, UConn, Northwestern, USC, Arkansas

If not for you all, your conference’s scheduling marks would look a lot better. I hope you’re happy. Readers, please note that there are two teams here that made BCS bowls. I’m just saying.

Anchor Award: Worst schedule for a team in a BCS conference

WINNER: Kansas (112 rank, 74.92 score)

Kansas, you’re the only team in the country that played in a BCS conference and still managed to have a schedule in the bottom 20%. That’s not easy to do. Sure, it just so happened you missed Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas Tech in your conference rotation, but few teams went to the bakery for bigger cupcakes than you did non-conference. Put it this way: throw out your numbers and the Big 12 has the toughest overall schedule for a conference; with them, it drops to third. Of course, that schedule is probably the main reason Kansas is in a BCS bowl, so the Jayhawks will probably make this a habit.

Deposed Nigerian Prince with an Email Account Award: Most fraudulent records

WINNERS: Boise State, Boston College, BYU, Hawaii, Kansas, UCF 

These are the teams who won at least 10 games with a schedule in the bottom two quintiles. Try to play some more notable teams in the future, will ya? Readers, please note that there are two teams here that made BCS bowls. I’m just saying.

Tebow vs. Daniel: Running

I sent my piece, “Tebow vs. Daniel: Passing” to the Orlando Sentinel’s and SunSports’ Mike Bianchi, and I got a reply back (thanks for the input, Mike!). Along the same lines of thinking as in the passing piece, he asked: is Tebow really a better runner, or just a guy who runs more?

Well, this is a tricky question, but I decided to tackle it. A lot depends on your definition of “runner” - are you talking speed and elusiveness, or are you talking effectiveness as someone attempting to gain yards on the football field to a specific end? Noel Devine and Jovorskie Lane are both running backs, but they have wildly different styles and are used for entirely different purposes. Devine can have highlight reel long runs, but he can’t pick up tough ground on short yardage situations like Lane can. Can you really say one is better than the other when they do completely different things?

I cover the discrepancy between Tebow’s style (sometimes as a battering ram) and Daniel’s (as an open field scrambler) below while still finding enough common ground between the two to come out with a conclusion, even if it is more tenuous than the conclusion about them as passers. It’s just the nature of the question. I’d say the fact that Tebow was even used as a running back while Daniel was not should be enough for anyone, but if that’s not enough for you, I give you my response to Mike Bianchi:

———————–

For all of these stats, I subtracted sacks out of the carry totals and added the lost yards on sacks back to the net yardage total because sacks don’t have much to do with how a guy does at running.

1. Is the guy a running QB, or just a mobile QB?

I’d define a running quarterback as a guy whose coaches plan on having him do designed runs or option reads, while a mobile quarterback is someone who can move around but seldom does designed runs or option reads. I’ve watched every Florida game start to finish, and I can tell you that Tim Tebow is a running QB. I haven’t seen as much of Mizzou as I’d liked to, but they’ve been on Gainesville TV a couple times and from what I’ve seen, Chase Daniel is a mobile QB.

2. The Offenses

Florida runs the ball 58% of the time to Missouri’s 47%, but the rush/pass mix is determined by a lot of things, mostly the head coach’s personal preference for either. Those figures don’t tell you much, but the percentage of the time that the QB rushes out of total rushes does tell you something. Tim Tebow’s rushes have accounted for 40% of his team’s carries; Chase Daniel’s rushes account for 17% of his team’s carries. Neither team has a dominant tailback, and both teams have at least 7 players (in Missouri’s case, 8 ) with at least 10 carries. With Tebow’s rushing stats ( 5.29 yards/carry, 22 TDs) being better than Missouri’s top rusher Tony Temple’s stats (4.9 yards/carry, 8 TDs), it would appear that Tebow is the best rusher on either team which by definition, makes him a better rusher than Daniel. Other players have better yards/carry numbers (for instance, Percy Harvin for Florida and Jeremy Maclin for Missouri), but they lack Tebow’s durability as a rusher, as evidenced by their having fewer carries.

3. The Numbers

These are actually somewhat inconclusive. Their yards per carry are similar (T: 5.29, D: 5.23), but there’s the issue of them being completely different runners - Tebow is used frequently in short yardage situations, whereas Daniel has picked up some longer runs off of busted pass plays since no one puts a spy on him. Tebow wins the carries per TD battle ( 8.27 versus 25.67) and the carries per first down battle (3.57 versus 4.81), but Tebow is often used for short yardage situations that naturally lead to first downs, as opposed to Daniel’s less planned, more opportunistic rushing style. After all, a greater percentage of Tebow’s first downs have come on rushes of 3 yards or less than have Daniel’s (18% versus 12.5%).

4. The Schedule

I have to put the sacks back in this time, because the NCAA doesn’t provide rush defense stats that don’t include sacks.

Tebow rushed for 4.63 yards per attempt, 13% higher than the 4.09 his opposition gave up on average. Tebow rushed for 1.83 TDs per game, 31% higher than the 1.4 his opposition gave up on average. In other words, Tebow was more effective both at picking up yards and scoring on the ground than anyone, running backs included, would have been expected to be given the same exact schedule. Think about that for a second.

Daniel was not used as his team’s primary running option, and he lost a lot more yards on sacks (9.06 per sack, versus Tebow’s 5.33), so his numbers in this regard don’t match up well. Daniel rushed for 2.77 yards per attempt, 29% lower than the 3.93 his opposition gave up on average. Daniel rushed for 0.25 TDs per game, 86% lower than the 1.52 his opposition gave up on average.

Again, due to the different running styles, these numbers don’t do much for comparing the two, other than signaling that Tebow was used like a running back whereas Daniel was not. However, Tebow still wins points here because he was a better than average rusher given his schedule. The fact that Tebow even could be used as a running back signals that he’s most likely a better rusher than Daniel is.

5. Conclusion

Because of how different the player’s styles are, it’s difficult to compare them as rushers. After all, when 3 yards out of the endzone, Tebow rushes up the middle thanks to his bruising style, whereas Daniel is more likely to throw a screen to the tight end thanks to him not having a smash mouth running style. Plus, defenses key on Tebow running even in passing formations, so he doesn’t have as many opportunities to run free on broken pass plays as Daniel does.

If there’s one thing that sets them apart it’s this - Tim Tebow can do an effective one-man play action pass. Other’s have tried it periodically (Ryan Perrilloux at LSU, for one) and as easy as it would be for any quarterback to implement (just take a step and lean forward before dropping back to throw in the shotgun), no one else can do it as well as Tebow can. That high amount of respect given to him by defenses run by very good defensive coordinators (Chavis, Pelini, Andrews, et. al.) signals that he is a serious running threat. There is no evidence as of yet to suggest the same about Daniel, so that’s why I’d say in the end that Tebow is a better runner than Daniel is.

Video: All 51 TDs

I made this video of all 51 of Tim Tebow’s touchdowns this year. The quality varies from game to game thanks to needing LF Sports and SunSports to complete it, but here it is. Enjoy the first player ever to throw and run for at least 20 TDs.